Climate Change Skepticism

[jdobbin]

I think it would be more accurate to say that because science is theoretical one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling. I don't think anyone is saying that nothing should be done about emissions but what kind of emissions should we be most concerned about? CO2 because of its alleged effect on global warning or pollution emissions which have a greater effect on our health. Sometimes they work against each other. One example: we take diesels which are more fuel efficient, much cleaner than they used to be and produce over 20% less CO2 than a comparable gasoline engine then saddle them with very strict emission standards which cause them to burn more fuel to burn off remaining particulates thereby producing more CO2.

Our current Premier spent a weekend with Arney, had an epiphany and declared that BC's emissions would be reduced by 30%. The most aggressive reduction on the continent despite the fact most of our electricity is hydro electric and produces no CO2 at all. The number came right out of the air. Absolutely no research done, no plan, not even one jotted down on the back of an envelope or napkin and he doesn't have a clue how it will be done. Exactly the opposite of the thorough planning California did when it set its targets. Now he has gone out and hired a bunch of alleged experts to figure out how, so he won't look like an idiot and god knows what this farce is going to cost us. That kind of mindless, herd like behavior is what worries this skeptic more than anything.

I agree that B.C.'s premier spoke too soon about what his province could do on the subject.

Harper's people all day have been hinting that they are going to opt out of Kyoto or any agreement thereafter unless everyone is involved. They are taking the all or none argument on emissions and mentioning Montreal and the agreement that was made in regards to ozone. Unfortunately for the Harper, the Montreal agreement was set up much like Kyoto in that less developed nations were exempt from the first reductions.

[Michael Hardner]

River,

The scientific process is a human process that is only as reliable as the humans involved and many, many scientists have staked their professional reputation on the idea that human caused GW is true. This introduces a source of bias which is more insidious than bias introduced by special interest funding. This also undermines the peer review process because the reviewers have a vested interest in blocking papers that threaten their careers.

Possibly, but so it is that special interests will gladly provide false evidence for a fee.

There is not much we can do to fix flawed humans but we can acknowledge the bias in the process and we cannot blindly accept that opposing views must be false because they go against the 'scientific concensus'.

We have also all have to realize that it is virtually impossible to produce evidence that would "prove" that CO2 does not cause global warming even though the current intellectual environment seems to expect that level of certainty before it will consider conflicting opinions. A conflicting opinion is worth considering even if it only casts some doubt on the current science.

If the CO2 hypothesis is discredited in the future it will not be a result of the work done by a single sceptic. It will come when the volume of conflicting evidence from different sources becomes too great to ignore. There are many different scientists working with different data that all seem to have results that cast doubt on the CO2 hypothesis. For that reason we must keep an open mind and be prepared for the possibility that what we believe today to be true about CO2 might not be true in the future.

Does an open mind mean we do nothing at all ?

If not, when are we supposed to act ? When there is unanimous support for an idea ? Isn't that just more 'herd mentality' ?

This open mind should influence any public policy decisions and we should work towards goals that serve a useful purpose even if the science is shown to be wrong in the future. For example, reducing energy usage cuts CO2 emissions and is good for the environoment in many other ways. Pumping CO2 into the ground does nothing other than increase the cost of energy.

Your model for action seems to say that science shouldn't be used as a basis for making important decisions with huge ramifications. But you think that CO2 should be cut in case it is the cause ?

I think that's what you're saying. It seems like you're against the general oafishness of the masses, as manifested in this issue. I understand the feeling.

I don't know what pumping CO2 into the ground means, but educate me on that too...

[Riverwind]

For example, there is a good summary in one of your links of the temperature "fingerprint" of global warming that was expected to appear in the atmosphere. A signature that has not appeared.

You picked an interesting example. I provided that link because it explained how the reliability of the ice core data has changed over time and why a reasonable person in the 1990s could have looked at the data and presumed a CO2 link but another person looking at the data today would presume no link. I did not give any weight to the signature argument because, as far as I can tell, the IPCC has never claimed that the 'theoretical signature' should be measureable in practice.

I do not believe that every claim by every skeptic has merit. I do believe that some of the arguments by some skeptics are sound and do cast resonable doubt on the assumption that CO2 is the cause of warming.

However, what is not mentioned when viewing this information is that there are more than 10 of these "global warming fingerprints". Global average temperatures, ocean temperatures, atmospheric limit changes, arctic glacier melt, etc. How have these been addressed, if at all?

These fingerprints that you refer to are signs that a long term warming trend is in progress. These fingerprints do not provide any insight into what might be causing the warming. I don't give much weight to skeptics who claim that an ice age is around the corner because the overwhelming amount of data suggests of warming trend. My issue is not whether warming is occurring but whether CO2 is causing it.

It would be the tendancy of any skeptic website to point out the information that is flawed, and avoid the information that appears accurate. So, even if the information you have read is correct, you have a decidedly incomplete picture.

That is not really an argument. You could build an extremely sophisticated computer model that produces bogus results because of a single flaw in one of the input datasets. For that reason it makes sense to focus on the flaws that have been identified and determine whether they are a serious concern.

[Riverwind]

Does an open mind mean we do nothing at all ?

Let's say your doctor tells you that your blood contains protiens that might indicate that you have prostate cancer. He then tells you that you can have surgery now and eliminate the possible cancer but you will be impotent and incontinent for the rest of your life. Or you can wait until it is possible to determine with more certainty whether you have cancer or not and risk an earlier death. What do you do?

The science of GW is a lot less reliable than a blood test for cancer because we have no way to create a hypothesis, conduct an experiment and verify that the expected results were produced. Yet GW advocates are expecting billions of people to make huge sacrifices in order to eliminate a "cancer" that might not exist.

Your model for action seems to say that science shouldn't be used as a basis for making important decisions with huge ramifications. But you think that CO2 should be cut in case it is the cause?

I am saying that people should not have the illusion that the science is certain - no matter what the GW advocates say. We are dealing in probabilities and that any decision about what to do should be based on a cost benefit analysis. For example, we could probably solve the GW problem in a generation or two with a mass sterilization program. However, I suspect most people would rather fry and drown before resorting to something like that. Any action we make to reduce CO2 emissions must be weighed against the costs and that may mean that we don't reduce CO2 as fast as GW advocates would like because we feel the costs are too dear.

I don't know what pumping CO2 into the ground means, but educate me on that too...

Capture CO2 from the stack of a coal plant and pump it underground into empty oil wells. It would be hugely expensive because suitable holes in the ground are not usually close to power plants but it is one of the only practical ways to reduce the carbon footprint. Edited December 8, 2007 by Riverwind

[sunsettommy]

Don't lie. I saw that movie about the day after. It was hot. No, I mean cold. Everything was buried under snow. Wait a second...

I saw that movie recently.

It is a terrible and movie.

I was amazed that people thought it had any relevance to the topic global warming climate change catastrophic change.

Pure crap is what it was.

[sunsettommy]

My skepticism of Steven Milloy's website comes from his failure to disclose even to the FOX network that he gets paid from Phillip Morris and Exxon for his views. FOX wasn't very happy with Milloy on the second hand smoke issue when it was revealed he was getting paid by Phillip Morris to express those views whenever he appeared in broadcasts.

And so it goes with the rest of the lobbying he does in regards to creationism, smoking, global warming and asbestos.

He is a lobbyist who gets paid for his opposing views.

Even Harper doesn't seem to show skepticism on emissions anymore. He isn't prepared to do much about it but he isn't pulling out of the talks or advocating denial in Canada or abroad. Perhaps the people here who think global warming is a hoax should search for a new political party that will actually support their views.

Translation:

Since I can not make credible rebuttals to what he posts on his website.I will instead drag out the endless AGW hogwash by implying that sinister funding sources are all that matters.

The second hand smoke lies have long been exposed.The EPA just like the IPCC have been making up claims that are easily blown down.They distort,lie and just plain make bogus arguments to bolster their power game.

I see this B.S. a lot now.AGW's have no arguments anymore because they are being CLOBBERED! They know it and that is why they now use one of the following:

Smear the writer.

Mock the writers educational background.

Bash the funding sources.

Belittle the skeptics positions.

Lie like hell about the issue.

Trash a skeptic paper but provide no rebuttals to them.

I have seen any or all of them in a single post in other forums.

AGW's have lost the argument and now wallow in so much B.S.ing it is sickening.

It is apparently too much for AGW's to consider just posting a decent rebuttal attempt to what the writer thinks about global warming.With all the computer games AGW's must play.Discussion is out of the question!

There are no reasonable debates anymore.Shoggoth is the ONLY one in this forum who attempts to discuss it reasonably as a AGW believer.

I bet that right now not a single AGW believer in this forum even knows what is going on about the suns unusual behavior and what it portends in the near future.Skeptics know all about it of course.I as Site Administrator of a skeptic forum post almost everyday an article discussing something about the topic.Lately it has been about the sun's unusual behavior.

There has been no warming since 1998.

Edited December 8, 2007 by sunsettommy

[Michael Hardner]

Riverwind,

I appreciate your opinion on this.

I am saying that people should not have the illusion that the science is certain - no matter what the GW advocates say. We are dealing in probabilities and that any decision about what to do should be based on a cost benefit analysis. For example, we could probably solve the GW problem in a generation or two with a mass sterilization program. However, I suspect most people would rather fry and drown before resorting to something like that. Any action we make to reduce CO2 emissions must be weighed against the costs and that may mean that we don't reduce CO2 as fast as GW advocates would like because we feel the costs are too dear.

I think that GW, as an issue, is a symptom of our inability to agree on things.

It's getting hotter !

Thanks again,

[Riverwind]

I think that GW, as an issue, is a symptom of our inability to agree on things.

A world where everyone agreed would be a stagnant and boring place.

[Michael Hardner]

They can't agree to disagree.

[Riverwind]

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445

EcoWorld: What is your criticism of the IPCC?

...

Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans' impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug's benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug's developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.

...

Roger Pielke Sr. is a retired professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, and a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Someone please remind me why the conclusions of the IPCC are accepted as fact by GW activists?

EcoWorld: What policies should be considered to deal with climate change? Is reducing CO2 emissions part of the solution?

Pielke: Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can only serve as a useful "environmental currency" as long as it provides the benefits needed to reduce the risk to critical environmental and social resources. As such, it needs to be part of a win-win strategy that provides a diversity of benefits.With energy efficiency and energy independence, for example, everyone benefits. As the "currency" for these benefits, however, greenhouse gas emission reduction represents an unnecessarily blunt instrument if there are more effective ways to reduce the risks to societal and environmental resources. Moreover, greenhouse gas policies can produce serious unintended negative consequences such as an increase in carcinogenic emissions when biodiesel is used, or reductions in biodiversity and alterations in climate when land management practices convert large areas to biofuels.

Greenhouse gas emission reductions, relative to other environmental currencies, should be evaluated with respect to their ability to reduce risk to essential social and environmental resources. In this framework, greenhouse emission reductions are only useful if they provide real benefit to those resources. Thus, if a policy made for other reasons also happens to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you clearly have a win-win situation. The current focus on using reductions in CO2 emissions as the primary currency for achieving benefits to society and the environment, however, clearly represents a very flawed approach.

He says it much better than I. Edited December 8, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Here is another exhibit that supports my claim that GW research is biased because the researchers presume that warming must be occuring.

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/p...rst_results.pdf

Six of these model versions show a significant cooling tendency in the doubled-

CO2 phase. This cooling is also due to known limitations with the

use of a simplified ocean (see Supplementary Information) so these

simulations are excluded from the remaining analysis of sensitivity.

Translation: if our computer models produced results that did not fit our hypothesis we assumed there was a problem with the computer model and tweaked the data accordingly.

This is a perfect example of why computer models are no substitute for real experiments.

[jdobbin]

Someone please remind me why the conclusions of the IPCC are accepted as fact by GW activists?

He says it much better than I.

The nuance in Roger Pielke Sr's work is that he believes there is incontrovertible evidence of global warming caused by humans. He just believes that the IPCC is too focussed on CO2.

He doesn't deny humans are causing global warming. He just believes it other factors as well.

Global warming denialists point out Pielke because of his criticism of the IPCC but then are not really interested in following up on his work because it could mean even more areas where industry would be targeted for global warming changes.

[jdobbin]

Here is another exhibit that supports my claim that GW research is biased because the researchers presume that warming must be occuring.

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/p...rst_results.pdf

Translation: if our computer models produced results that did not fit our hypothesis we assumed there was a problem with the computer model and tweaked the data accordingly.

This is a perfect example of why computer models are no substitute for real experiments.

You just posted on a scientist who strongly believes global warming is caused by humans and now you are back to denying it is happening again.

Now, you are saying that that scientists manipulate the data to fit their theory. That may be so but such manipulations can be challenged in peer review. It is no different that when Einstein posed a scientific theory, manipulated data to fit his theory and then continued to research so support grew based on his experiments. Even today aspects o Einstein's work are confirmed with technology and methodology he did not have. On the whole though, his work has stood the test of time despite the tweaks.

So I say continue the experiments of global warming but don't wait to act for the silver bullet of absolute certainty. It doesn't often come right away.

[margrace]

You know there's an old saying "Why don't we just do it". This whole subject and others are interconnected. For instance we need to look at our whole pattern of living, additives to our food, poor air, population explosion, food shortages, food adulteration, spending 60 million dollard to build 6 miles of highway to creat more pollution and so on.

Don't you think its time we stopped this childish discussion and did something possitive. Either you are for us or against us and I think if one looks to Africa with the Aids and adulterated drugs etc one sees that we definitly are against them. Letting millions die while we argue about climate change just shows how Christian we are doesn;t it.

I don't think the almighty dollar will do any of us any good when death comes calling.

[Riverwind]

The nuance in Roger Pielke Sr's work is that he believes there is incontrovertible evidence of global warming caused by humans. He just believes that the IPCC is too focused on CO2.

He clearly states that policies to reduce CO2 for the sake of reducing CO2 are a complete waste of time. IOW, Pielke rejects the basic tenet of Kyoto and and Kyoto II treaty (IOW he has repeated the argument that I have made several times).

His criticisms of the IPCC are also very serious yet you seem to brush them off. An extremely hypocritical position given your obsessions with the 'bias' of anyone who dares to question the IPCC orthodoxy.

BTW - Here is another piece of data which casts a lot of doubt on the IPCC assumptions about CO2

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...lar_charge2.jpg

The top graph shows changes in solar radiance and compares it to temperature changes.

The bottom graph shows changes in CO2 compared to temperature changes.

THe IPCC says their computer models show that CO2 can be the only explanation for warming. Yet here is empirical data that clearly shows a correlation between solar radiance and temperature. This does not prove that solar radiance causes the temperature changes but it means that solar radiance is a much more plausible cause than CO2. It is also more evidence that the IPCC has tunnel vision and is obessed with CO2 and not interested in exploring other possible explainations.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Now, you are saying that that scientists manipulate the data to fit their theory. That may be so but such manipulations can be challenged in peer review.

But they are been challenged but Carter and others but instead of addressing the legitimate concerns the GW advocates have chosen to castigate them for not having "faith" and accused them of "not getting it".

So I say continue the experiments of global warming but don't wait to act for the silver bullet of absolute certainty. It doesn't often come right away.

GW advocates have not done any experiments to validate their theory. They have simply constructed computer models based on their assumptions which might not be a bad thing if the computer models actually matched the empirical data. The problem is the emprical data contradicts the models. That tells me we should not make any policy decisions based on the models. Edited December 8, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

He clearly states that policies to reduce CO2 for the sake of reducing CO2 are a complete waste of time. IOW, Pielke rejects the basic tenet of Kyoto and and Kyoto II treaty (IOW he has repeated the argument that I have made several times).

His criticisms of the IPCC are also very serious yet you seem to brush them off. An extremely hypocritical position given your obsessions with the 'bias' of anyone who dares to question the IPCC orthodoxy.

BTW - Here is another piece of data which casts a lot of doubt on the IPCC assumptions about CO2

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...lar_charge2.jpg

The top graph shows changes in solar radiance and compares it to temperature changes.

The bottom graph shows changes in CO2 compared to temperature changes.

THe IPCC says their computer models show that CO2 can be the only explanation for warming. Yet here is empirical data that clearly shows a correlation between solar radiance and temperature. This does not prove that solar radiance causes the temperature changes but it means that solar radiance is a much more plausible cause than CO2. It is also more evidence that the IPCC has tunnel vision and is obessed with CO2 and not interested in exploring other possible explainations.

Where do I brush them off? I accept his statement that global warming has a human fingerprint on it. I accept more research needs to be done on it. I accept that the IPCC has to focus on several factors for the greenhouse effect. I disagree that nothing should be done to reduce emissions. I happen to believe the focus should be on several greenhouse gases and not just on CO2.

Global warming skeptics don't believe in several of Pielke's assertions yet use him to criticize the IPCC and deny global warming. It is cheery picking.

Where does the IPCC say that the sun is not responsible for global warming elements? I have seen several reports that say it is. However, by looking at that chart you posted, it seems to confirm that CO2 can be responsible for warming separate from the sun.

[Riverwind]

I happen to believe the focus should be on several greenhouse gases and not just on CO2.

You are missing the point. Pielke rejects the idea that human emissions are the major cause of the problem. He believes that land use pratices and urbanization are a bigger factor. Claiming you would like to reduce 'other greenhouse gases' is simply continuing with the flawed IPCC thinking.

Where does the IPCC say that the sun is not responsible for global warming elements?

Everywhere. The IPCC consistently denies that the sun is a significant factor and chooses to ignore data that that suggests it is. The IPCC has said over and over that the observed warming can only be explained by CO2 emissions.

I have seen several reports that say it is. However, by looking at that chart you posted, it seems to confirm that CO2 can be responsible for warming separate from the sun.

The graphs plot temperature vs. two variables. The correlation between solar radiance and temperature is extremely strong and is the most likely source of any causation. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is actually quite weak because the temperature rises and falls even though the CO2 levels are rising monotonically.

When you compare this data with ice core data that shows CO2 rising and falling *after* changes in temperature you should only be able to conclude that the relationship between CO2 and temperature changes is extremely weak.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

But they are been challenged but Carter and others but instead of addressing the legitimate concerns the GW advocates have chosen to castigate them for not having "faith" and accused them of "not getting it".

GW advocates have not done any experiments to validate their theory. They have simply constructed computer models based on their assumptions which might not be a bad thing if the computer models actually matched the empirical data. The problem is the emprical data contradicts the models. That tells me we should not make any policy decisions based on the models.

Actually, I challenge Carter to publish in journals. Aside from right wing think tanks and in his own narrow field, Carter is unknown to many scientists in the climate field. He has published very little in research on present day global warming. He lectures a lot. That's quite true. However, he doesn't publish a lot to challenge global warming on the science.

I've already said that computer models normally get tweaked in any scientific endeavour. There is other research being done on global warming. It hasn't just been computer scientists, mathematicians and physics geeks doing all the work.

If you feel so strongly on the issue, you should speak to Harper about it. Why try to convince me? He is now taking the tact that global warming is an issue and is trying to expand Kyoto, not end it.

[noahbody]

Where does the IPCC say that the sun is not responsible for global warming elements? I have seen several reports that say it is. However, by looking at that chart you posted, it seems to confirm that CO2 can be responsible for warming separate from the sun.

Their mandate is based on human induced global warming. This is how they frame the debate. They can say we can do something about human induced global warming. Whether we can impact global warming is a different story.

[jdobbin]

You are missing the point. Pielke rejects the idea that human emissions are the major cause of the problem. He believes that land use pratices and urbanization are a bigger factor. Claiming you would like to reduce 'other greenhouse gases' is simply continuing with the flawed IPCC thinking.

Everywhere. The IPCC consistently denies that the sun is a signifiacant factor and chooses to ignore data that that suggests it is. The IPCC has said over and over that the observed warming can only be explained by CO2 emissions.

The graphs plot temperature vs. two variables. The correlation between solar radicance and temperature is extremely strong and is the most likely source of any causation. The correlation CO2 and temperature is actually quite weak because the temperature rises and falls even though the CO2 levels are not changing.

Global warming denialists reject Pielke's own global warming theories. They reject the very idea of global warming. They only point to Pielke to discredit the IPCC. If Pielke's assertions were followed, they would say that those ideas were flawed too.

I believe that they have pointed out that the sun is not suspected in this latest fast rise in global warming compared to the rise in CO2.

As I said, you should take all the data to Harper and tell him to reject global warming. It is he you should be convincing or angry at for not listening.

[jdobbin]

Their mandate is based on human induced global warming. This is how they frame the debate. They can say we can do something about human induced global warming. Whether we can impact global warming is a different story.

And that is why the right wing suggests doing nothing.

[Riverwind]

Actually, I challenge Carter to publish in journals. Aside from right wing think tanks and in his own narrow field, Carter is unknown to many scientists in the climate field. He has published very little in research on present day global warming. He lectures a lot. That's quite true. However, he doesn't publish a lot to challenge global warming on the science.

The GW alarmists are now the gate keepers for many of the scientific journals and they regularly suppress research that does not conform to their views. Carter's papers are available for anyone to read and he supports all of his claims with references to other papers. There is no excuse for ignoring his arguments because they 'are not published'. That is simply a pathetic excuse cooked up by GW advocates to justify ignoring people who point out the serious flaws in their claims.

I've already said that computer models normally get tweaked in any scientific endeavour. There is other research being done on global warming. It hasn't just been computer scientists, mathematicians and physics geeks doing all the work.

Another cop-out. Computer models are only worthwhile if they are backed up by empirical data. The IPCC computer models are not supported by the empirical data.

As I said, you should take all the data to Harper and tell him to reject global warming. It is he you should be convincing or angry at for not listening.

Unfortunately, Harper has to respond to public opinion and there are too many people in this country that blindly accept the claims of the GW activists. As I said, I used to assume that the GW arguments were basically correct until I did this research and discovered the extend of the fraud that is being foisted on the world. I would love to believe that Carter and others are cranks and that the scientific process is working as it should. The problem is their arguments are too compelling and are supported by credible data.

What is even more disturbing is the appalling response to criticism in the GW camp - comments like your 'we will ignore him until he publishes something' are typical. Or claims that the onus is on other to prove that CO2 is not the cause of warming when the onus is really on them to show that is it does. It is farce and tragedy all wrapped up in one.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The GW alarmists are now the gate keepers for many of the scientific journals and they regularly suppress research that does not conform to their views. Carter's papers are available for anyone to read and he supports all of his claims with references to other papers. There is no excuse for ignoring his arguments because they 'are not published'. That is simply a pathetic excuse cooked up by GW advocates to justify ignoring people who point out the serious flaws in their claims.

Another cop-out. Computer models are only worthwhile if they are backed up by empirical data. The IPCC computer models are not supported by the empirical data.

Unfortunately, Harper has to respond to public opinion and there are too many people in this country that blindly accept the claims of the GW activists. As I said, I used to assume that the GW arguments were basically correct until I did this research and discovered the extend of the fraud that is being foisted on the world. I would love to believe that Carter and others are cranks and that the scientific process is working as it should. The problem is their arguments are too compelling and are supported by credible data.

What is even more disturbing is the appalling response to criticism in the GW camp - comments like your 'we will ignore him until he publishes something' are typical. Or claims that the onus is on other to prove that CO2 is not the cause of warming when the onus is really on them to show that is it does. It is farce and tragedy all wrapped up in one.

Peer review is how Carter got credentials in his own field in the first place. He can't say that he doesn't know how the process works nor can global warming denialists who want to remain scientists say they won't go through that process now.

I'm sorry that you are upset. I'm not ignoring Carter. I have read his remarks and believe that if he feels strongly on the issue that he should publish in journals just as he does with his specific field of work. The reason he is a professor at a university is because he has gone though the peer process. The least he can do is publish in academic journals of what his research leads him to conclude.

You really let Harper off the hook. Show him how you really feel on the issue. If public opinion is what he responds to: write him and tell him that you and others on the right wing will not vote for him because he is looking to expand emissions caps to the entire world.

Edited December 8, 2007 by jdobbin

[Canuck E Stan]

Denier series-National Post

Why melting of ice sheets 'is impossible

Here we go again, models at work......giving all the facts...Not.